Cargando…
In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography?
Heart rate measurement has become one of the most widely used methods of monitoring the intensity of physical activity. The purpose of this study was to assess whether in-ear photoplethysmographic (PPG) pulse rate (PR) measurement devices represent a valid alternative to heart rate derived from elec...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6749408/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31438600 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19173641 |
_version_ | 1783452271773745152 |
---|---|
author | Passler, Stefanie Müller, Niklas Senner, Veit |
author_facet | Passler, Stefanie Müller, Niklas Senner, Veit |
author_sort | Passler, Stefanie |
collection | PubMed |
description | Heart rate measurement has become one of the most widely used methods of monitoring the intensity of physical activity. The purpose of this study was to assess whether in-ear photoplethysmographic (PPG) pulse rate (PR) measurement devices represent a valid alternative to heart rate derived from electrocardiography (ECG), which is considered a gold standard. Twenty subjects (6 women, 14 men) completed one trial of graded cycling under laboratory conditions. In the trial, PR was recorded by two commercially available in-ear devices, the Dash Pro and the Cosinuss°One. They were compared to HR measured by a Bodyguard2 ECG. Validity of the in-ear PR measurement devices was tested by ANOVA, mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE), intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland–Altman plots. Both devices achieved a MAPE ≤5%. Despite excellent to good levels of agreement, Bland–Altman plots showed that both in-ear devices tend to slightly underestimate the ECG’s HR values. It may be concluded that in-ear PPG PR measurement is a promising technique that shows accurate but imprecise results under controlled conditions. However, PPG PR measurement in the ear is sensitive to motion artefacts. Thus, accuracy and precision of the measured PR depend highly on measurement site, stress situation, and exercise. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6749408 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67494082019-09-27 In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography? Passler, Stefanie Müller, Niklas Senner, Veit Sensors (Basel) Article Heart rate measurement has become one of the most widely used methods of monitoring the intensity of physical activity. The purpose of this study was to assess whether in-ear photoplethysmographic (PPG) pulse rate (PR) measurement devices represent a valid alternative to heart rate derived from electrocardiography (ECG), which is considered a gold standard. Twenty subjects (6 women, 14 men) completed one trial of graded cycling under laboratory conditions. In the trial, PR was recorded by two commercially available in-ear devices, the Dash Pro and the Cosinuss°One. They were compared to HR measured by a Bodyguard2 ECG. Validity of the in-ear PR measurement devices was tested by ANOVA, mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE), intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland–Altman plots. Both devices achieved a MAPE ≤5%. Despite excellent to good levels of agreement, Bland–Altman plots showed that both in-ear devices tend to slightly underestimate the ECG’s HR values. It may be concluded that in-ear PPG PR measurement is a promising technique that shows accurate but imprecise results under controlled conditions. However, PPG PR measurement in the ear is sensitive to motion artefacts. Thus, accuracy and precision of the measured PR depend highly on measurement site, stress situation, and exercise. MDPI 2019-08-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6749408/ /pubmed/31438600 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19173641 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Passler, Stefanie Müller, Niklas Senner, Veit In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography? |
title | In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography? |
title_full | In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography? |
title_fullStr | In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography? |
title_full_unstemmed | In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography? |
title_short | In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography? |
title_sort | in-ear pulse rate measurement: a valid alternative to heart rate derived from electrocardiography? |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6749408/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31438600 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19173641 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT passlerstefanie inearpulseratemeasurementavalidalternativetoheartratederivedfromelectrocardiography AT mullerniklas inearpulseratemeasurementavalidalternativetoheartratederivedfromelectrocardiography AT sennerveit inearpulseratemeasurementavalidalternativetoheartratederivedfromelectrocardiography |